'Police it! Or not.' by AkelySubmitted on 2009-07-14 17:00:06 CSTI'm in the camp that find EVE extremely boring to play yet strangely fascinating to read about. The drama in the game is awesome.

I don't agree though with many peoples opinion that scams, deposings and corp take-overs is "just like the real world". What EVE seems to be lacking, at least to an outsider like me, is a judicial system that can reverse. In the real world there is no "disband SOE" button an infiltrator can push. And many of the things one hear about could not happen IRL. That said, EVE is still one of my favourite games to read about. To bad I find it mind-boggingly boring to play.

'Keeping up with games...' by NinetytwoSubmitted on 2009-07-14 22:39:06 CSTI totally understand your need to play catchup on games you've missed because of MMOing -- I, too, have some dramatic holes in my gaming resume....

'Introduction' by ReatuKrentorSubmitted on 2009-07-14 22:56:19 CSTIs it me or do you say:"It's June 12th and this..." :-)
I registered to ask that *blush*, awesome show otherwhise

'Yet another great show...' by MassivelyMaxSubmitted on 2009-07-15 01:57:11 CSTThis was a really funny show, I lol'd multiple times, and Zenke wasn't even on!

Nearly every time I listen to this show it makes me want to start my own mmo game blog. Although, I'm not sure I have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion.

Be sure to get Frank (the New Yorker?) on again, he was very entertaining to listen to.

'Comments on the show' by KirithKodachiSubmitted on 2009-07-15 12:31:53 CSTI had enough thoughts that I made a blog post about this episode.

http://www.ninveah.com/2009/07/shut-up-were-talking-51.html

Great show as usual! Can't wait for #52.

'Damn, forgot to add...' by KirithKodachiSubmitted on 2009-07-15 12:33:51 CSTAbout Mynxee and Hellcats:

In order to be accepted to the all girl corporation you have to do a voice interview on Teamspeak or Ventrilo or Eve Voice. I don't think anyone capable of pulling that off would bother, and those that would bother would be unable to keep up the banter for very long. :)

'WoW RMT' by AndrewSubmitted on 2009-07-15 13:44:51 CSTOn the podcast no one agreed with me that the Blizzard offerings (toon renaming, customization, faction changing, and server transferring) were RMT/microtransactions....

Which makes EQ2's latest move to sell server transfers on their in-game store rather timely:

"EQ2 has re-opened character server transfers via its Station Marketplace RMT store, halving the price and making the process as smooth as possible. I’ve started moving my essential characters from Najena and Befallen to Antonia Bayle, my original EQ2 server before my desire to play with friends led me to have characters on a half dozen servers."

I stand by my assertion that the WoW options are RMT, just like the EQ2 offering, and any other similar services.

'RMT' by CelestianSubmitted on 2009-07-15 16:12:13 CSTChanging your face/sex/name/server for cash is a micro transaction for sure. I dunno why they said otherwise. It's no different than paying for character changes in RoM.

'RMT' by CelestianSubmitted on 2009-07-15 16:19:49 CSTChanging your face/sex/name/server for cash is a micro transaction for sure. I dunno why they said otherwise. It's no different than paying for character changes in RoM.

'Character Changes and Microtransactions' by Wilhelm2451Submitted on 2009-07-15 16:29:17 CSTWell, Celestian, I said otherwise because I don't agree with you or Andrew on the subject. This is clearly, from my view, just a character management transaction and no different than moving your character to another server. While your looks may change, nothing that affects game play changed one iota.

In RoM you buy their in-game currency, diamonds, and then can go to their shop and pick out items on which to spend them, most of which affect game play in some way. That is a microtransaction, you buy another currency then are able to buy things might otherwise be too low in price to economically sell via a credit card transaction.

If you're going to say that a $25 reset of character name/looks/gender is a microtransaction then you're most of the way to arguing that your subscription is also a microtransaction and the term has become completely meaningless.

I also disagree with you Andrew because RMT (company sponsored or illicit) implies you get something in game for real world cash. Server changes are an account management system and you end up with nothing new in whatever world. As with the WoW character reset, you are buying a service. The price is to cover labor, not a tangible item.

'The battle is joined!' by AndrewSubmitted on 2009-07-15 18:38:58 CSTThe labor involved in any of the WoW-supplied "microtransactions"/"account management activities" is negligible.... it is inconceivable that Blizzard does not have a single-click character move function in their code. The real reason they put a price tag on it, aside from a love of money, is as a deterrent. For whatever reason Blizzard has determined that they'd rather not have a highly mobile player base.... perhaps as a means of controlling server population levels.

The problem is, games like Free Realms, Wizard101, etc allow players to traverse the servers freely, and now you see games like EQ2 offering RMT-style tokens in their item shops to allow users to change servers too. Changing servers is clearly not an "account management" activity in this light - it's just another bit of metadata attached to a specific character (like name, facial features, alliance, etc).

As for the argument over price, perhaps the real issue is one of semantics.... "microtransaction" implies "tiny payment" whereas the cheapest such service that Blizzard offers is $10 (name change) and they range up to $25 (server change).

But even then, if you accept that buying a RoM premium mount in their item shop ($20) is a microtransaction/RMT then the idea of the term having some sort of dollar cap associated with it fades away.

Blizzard has been doing RMT for years on top of their subscription model.... most people just haven't correctly labeled it as such.

'more on Micro...' by CelestianSubmitted on 2009-07-15 19:45:10 CST" This is clearly, from my view, just a character management transaction and no different than moving your character to another server. While your looks may change, nothing that affects game play changed one iota."

That's exactly what you can do on RoM ... you can pay for a hair style/colour change. Why is the fact it doesn't change your character gameplay a "crossed line" for micro-transaction? I mean even EQ2 has the change your look, are you saying that's not micro-transaction either?

When "extra" money changes hands, typically a small amount, for a game I consider it a micro-transaction. Whether it's just to change hair colour, give me boosted EXP gain, add a additional character slots or to make my sword look fancy I still consider it a micro-transaction.

'The difference between complaining about EVE banking and EVE RMT's' by SulgSubmitted on 2009-07-15 21:21:13 CSTPlayers in EVE aren't complaining so much about losing ISK due to a bank CEO taking the ISK and running, they're complaining about the bank CEO taking the ISK and turning it into real money. What I think a lot of people are missing is that players who invest money in EVE banks aren't looking for "quick cash," and they're not being careless anymore than real life investors. It's often a calculated business decision that normally goes the right way.

Things that go right just don't make the headlines. Who wants to hear about CyberJohnny making a 10% return on the two billion ISK he invested? Nobody. But who wants to hear about the guy that royally screwed over EVE players and broke the EULA and TOS?

Everyone, both EVE player and non.

So, again, in-game screw overs are okay. That's what EVE's bounty system is for, which I haven't seen mentioned. But the hosts made a very good point-what about real life? I think this is an issue that we'll see arise more and more often, whether between players or between citizens, like the "ban" on gold farming we've seen in China.

'WoW and RMT' by GnovaSubmitted on 2009-07-17 07:28:06 CSTWhen discussing RMT in WoW don't forget the thinly veiled RMT of their TCG.
Buying cards for cash in hopes of getting codes for ingame items is a form of RMT.

What is the difference between someone buyng 20 packs of cards and opening them hoping to get a cool bit of loot and clicking on a button in a cash shop that gives your the cool bit of loot?
The difference is that the cash shop scenario is less incidious and doesn't pretend to be anyting other than it is.

What percentage of players that buy WoW, LoN, or SWG TCG cards actually do anything with the cards that don't give ingame loot?

I'd like to query though, Frank's notion of policing the financial sector which everyone else on the show rather went along with.

Eve is about crime. Rather than deplore a crime and start to figure out ways to stop it ever happening again I think we should just explore the fun of it.

Is it fun to rob and scam people? Yes it is for many people. For me I would never scam in WoW or EQ2 but in Eve everyone is the enemy of everyone else (except possibly corp-mates and allies). As I said to Syncaine on Darren's blog, there are no carebears in Eve. Business-focussed players aren't carebears, we're just trying to stab you in the wallet rather than shoot your ship down.

In EQ2 high level crafters often put low level items up for sale cheat to help newbies. In Eve that would just feel wrong, it's a totally dog eat dog world.

OK, granted in this instance the player wasn't doing it for the fun he was doing it for the money to be had from RMT but as Sulg says above that really is a separate issue. Possibly more could be done to intimidate players buying black market isk, perhaps the players who bought this Isk should be traced and banned as well as Ricdic.

Another issue is that in a situation of uncertain trust gameplay emerges to control the situation. Here's a very interesting quote:

"EBANK has shown it uses fractional-reserve banking, risk mitigation strategies, hedges, collateral on loans, and even service level agreements (which it measures). It's gotten to the point where it has actual defined policy and controls around it's finances and IT (using a crude change management system).

From a business point of view, it's pretty interesting to see this level of sophistication in a game where money can't be legally or easily "cashed out". Even Ricdic only stole 9% of deposits due to the diversification of Bank assets across multiple people"

Without the possibility to steal there wouldn't be the possibility to protect and the fun of this gameplay would be lost.

EBANK did a very good job of protecting its assets without needing to run to mummy and say the nasty boys are playing rough.

'WoW and Microtransactions' by ElysounSubmitted on 2009-07-18 22:17:52 CSTEpisode 51 was my first time catching your show. It's been a while since I've laughed out loud while listening to a podcast - which got me a lot of strange looks on the train-ride home from work.

I had a quick comment about WoW and microtransactions. I agree with a couple of people that posted that they are already here, but I see it from a different point of view.

I think that Blizzard started with the concept through the TCG game. I know I'm not the only person that's purchased a card through Ebay for some type of gimmick pet (for me it was the fishing chair - I always get comments on it). Also, I see the pet from the webcast of BlizCon this year to be a similar thing, especially for those of us that are purchasing it just for the pet. Yes, there's another service that we are purchasing, but I'm sure that plenty of people will dive in with no expectations of ever watching the live feed.

Anyway, great show and I look forward to many more!

'RMT vs (say it in a Star Wars voice) THE STARBUCKS EXPERIENCE!!! ' by ZulikaSubmitted on 2009-07-19 16:31:56 CSTBeing an old school gamer I am against RMTs.

For many, MMORPGs used to be an escape from the real world where the amount of work put in does not always equal the same amount of advancement when compared from one person to another. In other words there were no prejudices based on race, age, sex, or wealth. The phrase "You get out of it what you put into it." actually applied and in my mind that was always the RPG part.

I am trying a few of these games out and wiith every MicroT/RMT game advantage feature (and yes even xp potions are a game advantage), I feel we are losing some of the RPG from our MMOs.

But I heard on this cast someone speak of some amount of money for a horse in RoM that cost as much as 2 Starbucks Experiences. WTF is the Starbuck Experience? Does that Latte come with full release? -if you have seen the movie Idiocracy, you'll get that.

To each their own, but if you have no problem spending about $6 for some fluffy latte, from IMO a sub-par shop, I do not understand how you value that more than a permanent speed mount buff in a game that you know is based fully on RMT. Then maybe it was "The Wine Experience" that was making you think that way - hehe!

At least a few months from now you will remember the horse and will still be using it if you continue to play. Do you remember that latte experience you you had back in March? Man they don't make em like that anymore. How much do you spend on Lattes in a year? Like I said to each their own, but I find the whole thing comedic.

Always remember don't drink and blog.

Anywho love the show guys! Keep up the good work.

'@ Elysoun ' by darrenlSubmitted on 2009-07-20 13:26:28 CSTGlad you enjoyed the show and welcome to the community, sir.

...to everyone else: Thanks for all of these comments. Keep it up ;)

D

'RMTs' by SeritaphSubmitted on 2009-07-23 21:49:20 CSTDarren, I agree that $10 is too much for a horse. I'm not a fan of RMTs in the least. I have family who played a certain free-to-play game exclusively for quite some time, while I was playing a game that use the subscription model. I can honestly say, based on this experience, they were lured into paying 2-3 times more per month than I did. For the sake of argument let's use your horse example. They'd get lured in to buying a horse because it makes the game easier. Wouldn't you know it, soon after, Unicorns would be announced. Faster than regular horses with a sparkling rainbow trailing effect. Well, how could they resist? They must now buy the Unicorn so all their online friends can say, "Sweeet!". Wait a minute, they now are offering saddle bags and that would solve my painful inventory problem. All my gaming frustrations will be solved if I just buy item "X". You get the point. The problem is, I don't think they fully realized they were spending $30-45 a month for their "free-to-play" game. A very appealing business model which is why all the developers are looking at these games thinking, "What the...!" If a game is designed to be so painful to play, but free, that you find yourself considering RMT transactions, you have three choices: deal with it and play for free in misery, quit the game, or buy the stuff. With the addictive and social nature of MMOs, many people tend to fall into the Buy the Stuff category. But this is just my opinion. Great show!

'Mircotransations...' by BCAnimusSubmitted on 2009-07-25 03:17:03 CSTIn recent years I have been playing a lot of MMOs, and while I do see the business reasons behind the move to the RMT model I must say I am not entirely happy about it. Personally I find the traditonal pay-to-play sub games to be more polished and finished, and in those you kind of know what to expect, and everyone's in the same boat when it comes to gameplay.

Personally I don't mind the Guild Wars model of buying additonal bank slots, and mission packs, and extra skill unlocks for PvP for example, since the games are more than complete without the purchases. But right now in games like Runes of Magic, while it is entirely possible to play without paying a cent, a lot of the game was designed around the player spending real money for ingame items and perks, and in many instances I kind of feel left out or even punished for those times when I refuse to spend extra RM. As it is currently you are forced pretty much to pay RM for items and such just to keep up with the game - while that might not be a problem for caual players who play maybe once a month and maybe buy one or two items every two months or so, but how about for regular players who play every other night? For those they could end up paying more than the regular sub amount that other games demand... Especially when the pricing of the items are overpriced, like... $10 mounts for example. For Runes of Magic, most people would probably spend maybe $20 or so on one of their diamonds packs - so If you look at it this way, even to start off with you end up paying more for this F2P game than a proper sub-based game.

To make things worse, the game was designed to hook players into buying more and more via RMT. The fact that every other screen you are faced with options of spending RM, I find to be very annoying. It feels kind of like getting a free DVD or a CD, but then find yourself having to sit through 4 hours of advertising during the 1 hour movie or album.

It really depends on the implimentation really, and at though it IS at early stages yet, I agree with (er- Darren was it?) when he said what happens now and what we accept will define how the business model and the genre will evolve in the future. Which is why I say rage on! Join us brothers and sisters, and RAGEEE against those who seeks to take advantage of the meeker (and richer) of us!!! RAGEEE and say HELLL NOO to $10 horses!!! RAGEEEE!!!

'Mircotransations...' by BCAnimusSubmitted on 2009-07-25 03:22:48 CSTIn recent years I have been playing a lot of MMOs, and while I do see the business reasons behind the move to the RMT model I must say I am not entirely happy about it. Personally I find the traditonal pay-to-play sub games to be more polished and finished, and in those you kind of know what to expect, and everyone's in the same boat when it comes to gameplay.

Personally I don't mind the Guild Wars model of buying additonal bank slots, and mission packs, and extra skill unlocks for PvP for example, since the games are more than complete without the purchases. But right now in games like Runes of Magic, while it is entirely possible to play without paying a cent, a lot of the game was designed around the player spending real money for ingame items and perks, and in many instances I kind of feel left out or even punished for those times when I refuse to spend extra RM. As it is currently you are forced pretty much to pay RM for items and such just to keep up with the game - while that might not be a problem for caual players who play maybe once a month and maybe buy one or two items every two months or so, but how about for regular players who play every other night? For those they could end up paying more than the regular sub amount that other games demand... Especially when the pricing of the items are overpriced, like... $10 mounts for example. For Runes of Magic, most people would probably spend maybe $20 or so on one of their diamonds packs - so If you look at it this way, even to start off with you end up paying more for this F2P game than a proper sub-based game.

To make things worse, the game was designed to hook players into buying more and more via RMT. The fact that every other screen you are faced with options of spending RM, I find to be very annoying. It feels kind of like getting a free DVD or a CD, but then find yourself having to sit through 4 hours of advertising during the 1 hour movie or album.

It really depends on the implimentation really, and at though it IS at early stages yet, I agree with (er- Darren was it?) when he said what happens now and what we accept will define how the business model and the genre will evolve in the future. Which is why I say rage on! Join us brothers and sisters, and RAGEEE against those who seeks to take advantage of the meeker (and richer) of us!!! RAGEEE and say HELLL NOO to $10 horses!!! RAGEEEE!!!

'Value Judgements vs Market Shaping' by Jaxom92Submitted on 2009-07-28 16:49:58 CSTI think the folly of arguing for a particular price point is that each person places a different value on the same feature, service, item, etc. The market will, eventually, find the price point that gives them the highest revenue - with a scale balanced between price and number of people willing to buy. And that's the key to this issue: it's not that the horse is too expensive, but rather that we as gamers and consumers have the ability, in this early RMT market, to shape the prices. Even if you value a horse at 10 dollars, you have the ability to pay less by withholding your purchase. There is no established market price therefore the game companies are looking at their data intensely to see how many buy at what price.

We can choose what we pay, so why pay 10 when the company could be willing to give it for 5? It doesn't matter if you're willing to pay 10 or 5 or 2.50.